Tag Archives: disordered behavior

Post navigation

Featured

In his desire to remain relevant in a capricious society, Tim Kaine said the Catholic Church may one day allow same-sex “marriages.”

“Kaine, who attends a primarily African-American Catholic parish in Richmond, Virginia, acknowledged that his “’unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the church I still attend.’…”

The Democratic VP candidate, a self- proclaimed Catholic, not only approves of such impossible unions, but he doesn’t understand the basics of his faith as evidenced by:

“’But I think that’s going to change, too,’ he said to applause, invoking both the Bible and Pope Francis as reasons why he thinks the church could alter its doctrine on marriage.”1

But Church Doctrine Can’t Change

But, Mr. Kaine, doctrine is in unchangeable. Practices may change over the years, but doctrine is permanent.

For example, the doctrine of Jesus’ “hypostatic union”2 of the divine and human has always been true despite the Arian heresy (arising around AD 300) which “was willing to grant Out Lord every kind of honor and majesty just short of the full nature of the Godhead… He was granted, one might say (paradoxically), all the divine attributes – except divinity.”3

Also, the Church knows that Jesus is present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist4 starting with the Last Supper and no Christian revolution can change that reality.5

Doctrine is in unchangeable.6

The same goes for marriage. That it can only be between one man and one woman goes back to its very beginning. It was not invented by humans and thus cannot be redefined by humans.

Kaine Forgets About the Reality of Sin as well as the Definition of a Family

” ‘I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good, it is very good,’ he said.”1

Yes, God saw that His creation was good. Then, two human beings threw a wrench into this wonderful situation by introducing sin into the world. Some sins are “disordered behavior”7 and homosexual acts are in this category. God’s creation is good, but some human actions are not.

Like most errors, Kaine took a verse from Genesis out of context in order to justify his acceptance of same-sex “marriage” plus the way he came to that conclusion: “‘My three children helped me see the issue of marriage equality as what it was really about, treating every family equally under the law,’ he said.1

He summarized with: “‘To that I want to add, who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family?’ Kaine asked. ‘I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.’“1

The family, a very nice sentiment. However, to suggest that we can invent a family headed by two homosexual men or women is flawed because the “arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable.” [ For the complete answer to the question of single parents vs. two homosexual heads of household, see footnote 8]

Kaine, Like Many Others, Takes “Who am I to judge?” Out of Context

He concluded his argument for same-sex marriage by saying, “Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge? ‘ Kaine continued, referencing the pope’s 2013 comment when asked about gay priests in the church.”

One would expect the secular new media to take comments from a religious leader out of context, but a self-proclaimed Catholic like Tim Kaine?

Here’s a good summary of the issue: “When the Pope said, ‘Who am I to Judge’, he was not talking about a situation where an active and unrepentant homosexual was the subject of discussion. In the Pope’s own words, he was talking about a person who had, ‘experienced a conversion’, has gone to confession and ‘seeks the Lord’… “

“When they cannot take one of his statements out of context and when they cannot twist their interpretation to somehow support progressivism, they ignore it completely. This is why you do not see major news outlets reporting that Pope Francis calls on Catholics to defend marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman….”

“You will not see the NBC Nightly News reporting the Pope’s recent speeches and homilies in the Philippines, such as:

‘The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.’”9

Case closed.

Conclusion

This much can be said about Tim Kaine. If he were to be elected Vice-President, there is no doubt he could continue the error-riddled legacy of the current pseudo-Catholic in that same office, Joe Biden.

If Kaine believes the Church will someday change the definition of marriage, he needs to be prepared for an endless wait!

2 – “The union in one person, or hypostasis, of the divine and human natures. Jesus Christ is both God and man in virtue of the hypostatic union, a mystery of faith in the strict sense… Although he is God and man, he is not two but one Christ. And he is one, not because his divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because he is one person…” From New Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 2003, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407705521/hypostatic-union.html

4 –“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” Paragraph 1377 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November , 2013.

5 – “It was above all on ‘the first day of the week,’ Sunday, the day of Jesus resurrection, that the Christians met ‘to break bread.’A From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church’s life.” Paragraph 1343, Ibid. A – Acts 20:7.

6 – “In catechesis, ‘Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,…is taught – everything else is taught with reference to him – and it is Christ alone who teaches – anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ’s spokeman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips… Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Christ: ‘My teaching is not mine, bu his who sent me.’” Paragraph 427, Ibid.

7 – “… Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravityB, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’C They are contrary to the natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Sections of Paragraph 2357, Ibid.

8 – “What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.” http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

What is a “phobia”? It is “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”1

“Homo” is the prefix meaning “a genus of primates that includes modern humans (Homo sapiens) and several extinct species.2

Let’s Build a Word

Putting these two together, we arrive at “homophobia” which means an irrational fear of a genus of primates. If this exists, it would be exhibited as a fear of all people… probably not the originally intended meaning.

Could it be that this word is being misused by those who wish to discredit fellow humans who understand that sexual activity between two men or two women is intrinsically disordered? Even someone who does not follow a religion should know without a doubt that this behavior is contrary to Natural Law. (Key point: it’s the behavior that must be rejected, not those involved.)

Adulterophobia?

Distortion of language is the weapon of choice for the politically correct crowd. Realizing this, it is surprising that they haven’t labeled those opposed to adultery, and its cousin fornication, as being “adulterophobes.” Perhaps it’s because this mortal sin has been so ingrained in our society that it’s considered standard procedure. This brings to mind a mid-1980’s episode of the television series “Murder She Wrote” when one of the main characters attempted to chide another by saying, “Infidelity isn’t exactly front page news anymore.”

Of course, even if “progressives” felt the need ridicule those men and women attempting to be virtuous, the term would still be absurd. These individuals do not have an irrational desire to avoid sexual relations outside of a valid marriage. They are simply respectful of the disruption this behavior causes to society, not to mention its eternal consequences. That is a reasonable thing to be concerned about!

A Charitable Response, not Enabling Behavior, is What’s Needed

By its origins, “homophobia” does not exist as social engineers claim. It’s merely a clever attempt to demean those who acknowledge “the big picture” into accepting a disordered lifestyle which goes against Natural Law as well as the Ten Commandments. Arbitrary social changes produce contrived terms which divert our focus from what should be our top priorities, in this case: on loving and assisting those afflicted with these tendencies into a better life— both now and, more importantly, beyond.

The U.S. Supreme Court case involving California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriages is receiving an elevated level of attention. It’s providing an excellent opportunity for those supporting the unchangeable institution of marriage to reveal their understanding of it… or lack of it as evidenced by:

From the Court’s Proceedings

“Much of the debate circled around the needs of children and the importance of procreation to the state’s interest in marriage. In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked whether it would be constitutional to prevent couples over the age of 55 from marrying, given that they would not be procreating.
‘Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples, both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional –‘Cooper began, before being interrupted by laughter.
‘I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage,’ Kagan shot back.”1

Key Aspect of Marriage is Misunderstood

Charles J. Cooper, representing Proposition 8, got himself into this jam when he said that it supports “responsible procreation”2 and the implication that marriage without children is not a marriage.One of the aspects of a valid marriage is that the couple is “open to having children,” not necessarily discovering whether they are able to have them. Thus, the discussion with Justice Kagan took a turn for the worse (see footnote #3).

The Old Testament case of Abraham and Sarah is a great example of this distinction. They were an elderly, childless couple.4 They proved to be open to God’s will to give them a child, even though they certainly weren’t of the age normally expected to be able to have one.

Society Chose the Wrong Fork in the Road in the ‘60s

“Openness to children” is a recurring theme regarding human sexuality, especially since the arrival of artificial contraceptives in the 1960s. Many, including a great number portraying themselves as Catholic, were “relieved” and took great delight in reducing the chances for conception within marriage through unnatural means. By doing so, they ignored a key aspect of marriage.3,5

This notion of trying to circumvent the inherent responsibility of sex spilled over into the unmarried segment of the population. The outcome is a complete disregard for all that the 6th Commandment entails.6

Consequently…

With the resulting distortion of what marriage is and the erroneous belief that human sexual activity does not have to be restricted to valid marriages, is it really surprising that there is a movement to legitimize disordered same-sex unions?

1 – from “Supreme Court Prop. 8 Arguments Focus on Sex, Science,” by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience senior writer, 3/26/20132 – Huffington Post article by Mike Sacks and Ryan J. Reilly, 3/26/20133 – Paragraph 1664 of Catechism of the Catholic Church:“Unity, indissolubility and openness to fertility (emphasis added) are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (emphasis added).” Before someone argues that the Church does not consider a couple to be married when it is discovered they cannot have children, there is Paragraph 1654: “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.” (published by Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)4 — Whether or not one takes their stated ages literally is not important. The purpose of the account was to show that they were beyond the normal child-bearing years, at least for the wife.5 – Preventing conception through natural means allows for God to “overrule” us. By the same token, “openness to children” does not mean having children using any method. This includes having in vitro fertilization (which also involves the destruction of “excess” babies) and surrogate conception, both of which go outside the marital bond. Each is an attempt to overrule God’s natural plan for procreation.6 – In discussions, I have found that a great many Christians think that the 6th Commandment pertains only to married couples because it says “adultery”—that single people are not bound by a moral standard for sex, too. Somehow Scripture’s condemnation of fornication between heterosexuals and disordered sexual behavior between those who are same-sex attracted has been conveniently swept under the carpet. In addition to the overriding fact that same-sex relations are inherently disordered, they are also a means of unnaturally blocking the potential procreative aspect of sexual activity in the same way self-gratification does (masturbation).

Like her boss in the White House, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has been expressing theatrical concern over the possible effects which “Sequestration” will have should Congress and the President not agree on a budget by the end of the week.

True, there will be across the board “cuts” (or more accurately, decreases in federal spending increases as Fox News and the WordPress blog “Quiner’s Diner” have been reminding us). But the worry about it damaging our national interests and security is particularly humorous in view of what has been happening for some time. Losing some border patrol and TSA agents is miniscule compared to the internal destruction going on right now with the approval of 50.7% of the voters last November 6. (It might actually be beneficial to the border patrollers – being displaced means they’ll stand less of a chance of being killed with our guns in the hands of foreign drug criminals.)

For the 50.7% (including, sadly, many of my fellow “Catholics”), let me remind them of the modern version of the Fall of the Roman Empire unfolding in front of us (the order of this list does not necessarily indicate priority):

1)$16 trillion in debt, 48% owned by foreign governments and individuals.1 As of last June, China owned ¼ of our foreign owned debt.2 Two huge problems here. Climbing debt slowly strangles our government’s ability to deal with anything except servicing the debt, not to mention weakening the dollar. And, do we really want an ideological opposite like China to have this level of power over us? (Well, maybe not such an ideological opposite as we’ll see in the following items.)

2)Disregard for the dignity of human life. (This should be first, as all other rights are in danger when this one is ignored.) “Choice” and “reproductive rights” are the morbid euphemisms resulting from a terribly flawed Supreme Court decision forty years ago. Oh well, Obama and his followers don’t need to worry. Those 55 million murdered can never vote against them. Incidentally, an ardent Obama supporter, George Soros, contributed to the development of the abortifacient “RU-486”and its use.3,4

3) Major contributors to the President’s political party who are opposed to our nation’s survival. Not true? Well, back to George Soros again, one of the masterminds pushing for Democratic election victories since 2003. Soros commented that “Some global system of political decision-making” in which “the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions” when “collective interests” are at stake.5 Also, “[Soros] argued that a vision of ‘open society idealism’ must supersede traditional state sovereignty if globalization is to benefit all.”6

4)Doing away with the basic unit of civilized society, the family, by attacking the sanctity of marriage.OK, so you don’t believe in the Ten Commandments, then I hope there is some acknowledgement of Natural Law. Men and women are different physically for a reason. (surprise!) Same gender sexual activity must be condemned because it is intrinsically disordered. We are morally bound to afford those afflicted the same care and consideration as we do for anyone else experiencing disordered tendencies such as gambling addiction, alcoholism, heterosexual addiction, pedophilia, greed for power and money, etc.7Marriage was not invented by the Church or the state. Neither of these institutions has the authority to redefine it. Legitimizing same sex “marriage” has ripple effects which disrupt the structure of the family.

5)Making it so that citizens are dependent on Big Brother for everything.Food stamp recipients increased by about 47% or 15 million during Obama’s first term.

Laws using distorted definitions of “discrimination” and “equality” are threatening the major areas of non-governmental social programs and agencies. Religious organizations, many of which are Catholic, are finding that they are running afoul of creative laws which declare them to be discriminatory. Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot accept same-sex couples as appropriate guardians because of Natural Law and core beliefs. The very existence of religious schools, hospitals and social organizations is threatened because they will not deny deeply held faith beliefs in order to be compliant with government directives such as the HHS mandate.

6)Essentially suspend freedom of religion, an inalienable right, by limiting its practice to church buildings. Not only are there dangers such as the HHS mandate, but we also have, “Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.”8

7)A federal government so insecure that it touts the crimes of a few, criminally insane as justification to work toward disarming the citizenry. You and I are such a threat to their vast teams of undercover, armed agents and military might? This warrants therapy for us, but they’d better hurry before all Catholic Social Services are out of business!

8) Increasing invasions of privacy under the guise of “protecting” us. Cameras everywhere. Drones at Obama’s disposal. New cars in 2014 required to have “little black boxes” to record vehicle operations data similar to that of 600 mph jets. Chip implants, just for “high security workers” now, but eventually for “medical records” followed by “etc.”

And we’re supposed to lose sleep because Janet Napolitano’s budget will be affected if Congress doesn’t give in to an executive-order happy President?

1 – Kimberly Amadeo, www.About.com, 1/8/20132 – Ibid., 9/5/20123 – Rachel Zimmerman. “Choice Allies: Awaiting Green Light, Abortion-Pill Venture Keeps to the Shadows,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/5/2000, reference posted in www.churchmilitant.tv4 – “Contributed $1 Million To Planned Parenthood For “Outreach, Education and Training” Relating To RU-486,” Marc Kaufman, ”Abortion Pill Deliveries Begin Soon,” The Washington Post, 11/16/2000, also in www.churchmilitant.tv5 — Matthew Rees, “Saving Capitalism From Soros,” The Ottawa Citizen, 12/9/1998, in www.churchmilitant.tv6 — Carlin Romano, “George Soros Offers A Plan To Help Poor Via Globalization,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/2002, also in www.churchmilitant.tv7 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition: for most of them it is a trial [blog author’s note: “trial” as in a “tribulation,” not trial as an experiment]. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s Will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. [blog author’s note: just as any man and woman not married to each other are called] By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested [note: meaning not self-serving] friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (paragraphs 2358 and 2359 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)8 — Xavier Lerma, pravda,ru web site, 11/19/2012, posted in the article “Fiscal Cliff: Obama Poised to Win Either Way, U.S. Loses Either Way,” on www.CartaRemi.wordpress.com, 12/29/2012

President Obama is hitting the road to promote the economic and educational plan he outlined in his State of the Union address last Tuesday. Three days ago, he spoke at Hyde Park Academy in Chicago.1 For someone who promotes the killing of the unborn (to the rate of 130 Sandy Hooks per day) and same-sex “marriage,” his ironic comments would be hysterical if they weren’t such a sober reminder of our societal deterioration currently in free-fall.

1) “Too many of our children are being taken away from us.” Yes, over one million per year are being taken away from us. These living entities have chromosomes which are distinctly different from each parent thus making them separate human beings, not merely a mass of multiplying cells. These unborn children are having their inalienable right to life taken away by a “procedure” usually requiring less parental notification and consent than a field trip to the zoo.

2) The article noted “The most important task, the president [news source used small case] said, is to keep young people “safe from harm.” Why is it the youngest of all face the worst harm in what should be their safest location, inside his/her mother? Oh, I forgot, the unborn aren’t people yet. Besides, if they are born, most likely they will be a burden to a society which has limited funds for health care, etc. There was a 20th century dictator who took it upon himself to decide who was human and allowed to live, too. (Shouldn’t mention his name or I won’t be able to run for president of the state board of education.)2,3

3) Here’s the clincher: “Decrying the lack of adult role models in too many places, Obama advocated programs to ‘promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.’” The awakening of the responsibility of fatherhood is wonderful and very necessary. If only Obama and his disciples believed in marriage as defined by the original author. Ignoring His natural law to invent a new marriage legitimizing disordered behavior cannot produce the adult role models so desperately needed.

1 – David Jackson, USA Today, as printed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/16/20132 – “Hitler’s regime continued to send to physicians and the general public the message that mental patients were ‘useless eaters’ and life unworthy of life.’” (from “Nazi Persecution of the Mentally and Physically Disabled,”www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org)3 – “Terhar, Obama, Hitler and Facebook: To Democrats, Get a Life!,”www.CartaRemi.wordpress.com, 1/31/2013

Definition: “scandal” – “is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin… It is not the physical cause of a neighbor’s sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion… and as such it [scandal] exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin.”1

We live in an era of politicians getting away with obvious untruths and expecting the absurd to be accepted with greater unquestioning “faith” than that given to Church teachings. To some, this may be “scandalous” in the modern sense, but more closely related to “shocking” than to the classical “scandal.”

The Catholic Church has guarded the faith carefully because of the earlier definition in the first paragraph. Teaching error, as is the case with most sins, affects more than the individual committing it. It is this particular concern which the Archdiocese of Cincinnati had with the issue of Mike Moroski and his personal blog. His statements afterward, and those of some of his supporters, could come under both versions. Either way the situation was unfortunate. But it was also very necessary that he be fired on February 11 from his administrative and teaching position at Purcell-Marian High School in Cincinnati.2

Background

Moroski posted his support for “gay marriage” on his personal blog. He acknowledged “that he violated the Archdiocese’s social media policy. The contract he signs every year also requires him to ‘comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.’” Moroski was put on administrative leave Feb. 4 and given the opportunity to recant his blog statements and thus, retain his position at the high school.3,4

Significance of Actions

These agreements are required because the Archdiocese of Cincinnati operates Purcell-Marian.2 Both have the responsibility to ensure that Church doctrines are taught and presented accurately. All Catholics, not just priests, are morally bound to defend critical Church teachings to the best of their abilities5 to avoid the earlier version of “scandal” – communicating an error which misleads others; and subsequently into wrongdoing. Those in official positions of authority are also bound contractually, as Mike Moroski was.

Aftermath

When he refused to remove his statement from his blog, he said, “I believe in Catholicism, but my conscience will not permit me to recant my statement. I put it up there because I really, truly, honestly believe it.” The newspaper added that he said he “‘knew the statement I was making was not in accordance with Roman Catholic beliefs,’ but he does not think he violated the contract because he was following his conscience.”2

His stated belief in Catholicism and having the courage to act on his own beliefs is certainly admirable. But how could a teacher in his 12th year at a Catholic high school (including ten years at Moeller) continue to sign a contract whose explicit expectations were so opposed to at least one of his beliefs? There is no mention of, nor would one expect there to be, a provision in the contract which allowed a school administrator to publicly contradict a Church doctrine because of conscience, well-formed or otherwise.

Letters to the Editor

The local secular newspaper published a majority of comments in Moroski’s defense. Powell Grant’s letter 3included, “There is no reason why marriage should be denied to any couple that loves each other.” (except that the author of marriage, God-and not the state, explicitly forbids same-gender sex) “No one is ever harmed by someone else’s marriage.”(just the couple who is violating the 6th Commandment… or anyone influenced by their actions to do likewise… uh, oh, “scandal” would be occurring here, too) “Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans have reached the same conclusion [that prohibiting homosexual couples from marrying is unjust].” (hm, I just happened to have posted an article on moral truths not being subject to popular opinion, 2/11/2013)

Carolyn Schultz3 brought up a good point that Obama-Biden bumper stickers have been prevalent at Purcell-Marian. Her implication was that that it’s no different from what Moroski did on his blog, expecting readers would reach the conclusion that he should be exonerated. Actually, they should go the other direction and bring those teachers to task for their open support of disordered behavior!

All of the pro-Moroski writers are probably well-intentioned, but it cannot be ignored that they are like the rest of 50% “Catholic vote” in perpetuating the moral errors promoted by the President. In their opinion, his victory last November justifies his rewriting of things spiritual as if they were things of state.

Beth Egbers was one respondent who understands the gravity of this situation regarding the sanctity of marriage. She wrote, “They can choose to offend God, but when they are leading Catholic students astray6, they are multiplying their offense exponentially. The fact that Moroski has been educated at Xavier and Notre Dame says a lot, unfortunately.”3

Yes it does, very unfortunately. Just as these universities used poor judgment7, now their former students are spreading error on critical issues. I hope this teacher and his supporters gain a valuable lesson about “scandal.”

1 – www.newadvent.org> Catholic Encyclopedia2 – Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/10/20133 – Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/12/20134 — WLW radio reported the Moroski’s option during the week of February 45 – “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,” (from 1 Peter 3:15), The New Catholic Answer Bible, Fireside Catholic Publishing, Wichita, KS, 20056 – and therefore, is an example of scandal in the classical sense7 – Xavier University retracted its position on contraceptives and abortifacients and resumed coverage of these in its insurance policies last year. Notre Dame invited President Obama to give the commencement exercise in 2009, which included the usual honorary degree. Unfortunately, it was to someone who holds many of the Church’s teachings in contempt and works to stifle them.

The politically correct events of the last few years have made it much easier to empathize with Moses and his sense of betrayal when he came down from the mountain with The Ten Commandments. When he found his people reveling in all kinds of disordered behavior and idolatry he knew that the consequences for their actions weren’t going to be pretty.

Here was a people who had been freed from slavery by more than its own efforts (by God’s intervention). The same nation which had professed an undying love and respect for the Creator was now re-enslaving itself to the Prince of Darkness, the Master of Deception. The same I-know-what’s-best-for-me pride which got him bounced from Heaven had now been embraced by the people Moses had gone out on a limb for when he challenged the pharaoh. It was, indeed, a sad day for truth. It was also the beginning of forty years of wandering in the desert.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Here we have the United States. This is a nation which was freed from political bondage by more than its own efforts (only to speak His name invites derision now). It won a war of independence which no odds makers would have bet on. The nation survived a devastating civil war and moved on to greater times (although it took a century to make real civil rights part of its laws). It has thrived despite world wars and other violence determined to destroy peace. It has been a nation which instituted an annual day of thanks to God, while at the same time graciously protecting the rights of those who choose not to believe in Him.

Our Moses Moments

If Moses were alive today, he would have felt the same deep betrayal. Over the last forty years, a nation which has been given more than any other in recorded human history has found ways to rationalize an intrinsic evil and call it a “reproductive right” and now is justifying the enabling of disordered behavior and calling it “marriage equality.”

To defend natural law, which no one us has the authority to rescind, invites the same verbal persecution formally reserved for real villains like King Herod, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Idi Amin just to name a few. Pastor Louie Giglio realized this and “resigned” from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second term inaugural after groups took issue with a sermon he gave in the 1990s.

Public Opinion Cannot Change Scientific and Moral Truths

In his talk, he acknowledged that the “gay”1 movement is aiming “to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family… “It is a sin in the eyes of God.”2

Technically, no temptation is a sin by itself. It becomes one only if a person acts on it or dwells on it to spiritually dangerous levels. So, while the clip of his 1990s sermon did not make it clear that he was addressing the acting out of homosexual tendencies and not just the temptations, we get the gist of his point whereas his detractors do not. Morally speaking, he was correct. By the way, all heterosexual activity outside of marriage is just as wrong. Scripture is not picking on homosexuals, because we are all sinners. Rather, it addresses all unacceptable behavior and states how we are to live if we are to be in harmony with God’s will. Public opinion has been trying for generations to justify “free sex,” too, without recognizing that moral truths are not subject to referendum.

The same goes for scientific truths. The understanding of nature should not change in our science publications because a grass roots effort simply takes a disliking to one aspect of the universe. Unfortunately, that is what the American Psychiatric Association did in 1973 (a watershed year for bad decisions, re: Roe v. Wade). In the early 1970s, it issued an update on its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders known as the “DSM.” At that time, “the ancient DSM-II had labeled homosexuality as a disorder till public reaction led to its removal in 1973.”3 Apparently, the label “ancient” was used to imply that parts of Natural Law have a shelf-life. In any event, the change came about because of current fad.

Who’s Next?

Pastor Giglio is by no means the first to experience intolerance from a self-proclaimed enlightened group. Rebellion by spiritually adolescent organizations has been around since before the days of Moses’ trials with the Israelites.

A current movement is afoot to garner enough signatures to require a White House response to its claim that the Catholic Church is a hate organization because of Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks last month regarding the inherent dignity and unchanging nature of marriage when he said,”This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is.Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation… When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.”4

When eternal truths are discarded and their defenders are in danger, our outlook isn’t pretty once again. In this case, God won’t have to make us wander for another forty years. We are doing it on our own by, in a sense, discarding His map for a happy life and are relying on GPS’s calibrated by the same Master of Deception who turned Moses’ Israelites toward evil.

1 – Euphemisms and other literary devices are commonly used to disguise a wrong or misrepresent something which contrary to an agenda. Thus, we have a new, erroneous concept labeled “marriage equality,” which has nothing to do with the equally inherent dignity of the man and woman involved with the sacrament. Other people aren’t “pro-life,” they’re called “anti-abortion,” as if being against a form of murder was deserving of criticism. Others aren’t against intrinsically disordered behavior, but are called “homophobic,” a particularly devious term because the opponents of “gay rights” are not disturbingly afraid of human beings/mankind as the manufactured word states.2 – MSNBC news, 1/10/20133 – Kent Sepkowitz, Newsweek, 12/17/20124 – Vatican.va, translation of the Pope’s message, 12/21/2012